So you don't like reading the Mirror Universe stories, then? Or the Myriad Universes entries?
Trek 2009 Novels
- Thread starter aventinelover
- Start date
So you don't like reading the Mirror Universe stories, then? Or the Myriad Universes entries?
Khan isn't a story, he's a character. He can be put into limitless situations - just as Batman and The Joker have over the years.
Trek lit has plenty of intentionally different continuities (Shatnerverse, Star Trek Online, Crucibe, Destiny etc). NuTrek is not TOS. It's a modern take on the premise. The characters lives are different (Spock's a holocaust survivor, for starters), it's more action packed. I can't wait to read more!
It's also the home of Spock Prime. I've hunted down and read all the post-TOS Spock books. I couldn't wait to find out what he did next. Greg's novel about the Federation's enemies trying to exploit his future-knowledge would have been great fun.
Indeed, most long-running series generate multiple continuities eventually, and I think people often overestimate how "confusing" this is to the audience.
As I've written before: even as a kid, I understood that the comic book Batman, the TV Batman, and the Saturn morning cartoon Batman existed in distinctly different continuities. And even that there was the Golden Age ("Earth-2") Batman and the modern ("Earth-1) Batman. Didn't bother me a bit.
Nor did I fret that the Universal Dracula and Frankenstein movies obviously took place in a different continuity than the Hammer Films versions. Or that the sixties-era Tarzan movies were separate from the old Johnny Weismuller movies playing on TV ever weekend. I don't recall scratching my head and wondering where Jane and Boy were when I watched, say, Tarzan and the City of Gold. Even my unsophisticated ten-year-old self understood that there were the "old" Tarzan movies and the "new" Tarzan movies and didn't find this very confusing.
I can't imagine that today's media-savvy audiences any going to find old and new Trek any harder to tell apart. Especially since there aren't going to be any more movies or tv shows set in the old timeline.
Well folks can rest easy now, Khan won't be in ST-XII. Kang on the other hand...
Well folks can rest easy now, Khan won't be in ST-XII. Kang on the other hand...
No, Khan won't be Del Toro's character. Khan could still be Del Toro's mentor, thawed post-2233 and puppeting the Klingon Empire from the shadows....
That's why I don't read them beyond the originals.
And Kirk killed him. Can we please just leave him there?
I know that. Star Trek has limitless possibilities. Let's explore them instead of rehashing Khan and other Trek stories.
That kind of purism makes no sense. It's all equally fictional anyway, so it's pointless to say that one made-up story is less "real" or worthwhile than another made-up story about the same characters. You're cheating yourself out of a lot of great fiction for no reason.
And what is "the original" where Batman is concerned? DC has restarted its continuity from scratch at least four times since Batman was created. So are you saying you only read Batman comics dating from the late 1930s through the 1940s? If you read anything more recent, you're reading a reinterpretation, an alternate continuity.
Could you speak for yourself, please? It makes perfect sense to me.
When I said "the original," Mr. Nitpicker, I was primarily thinking of Sherlock Holmes. I only read one run of Batman, and not the full run. Seriously, do you have to read so much into what everybody says? It's like you've declared yourself the guardian of all things Trek and if anybody misspeaks in the slightest, we get such condescension from you. Care to turn down your perfectionism?
^All I'm saying is that you're hurting yourself by refusing to read or watch enjoyable works of fiction just because of totally arbitrary rules. I'm trying to help you by showing you that it's worthwhile to expand your horizons. By being defensive and angry in response, you're only hurting yourself, trapping yourself within a rigid set of assumptions, and I'm sad for you.
Sherlock Holmes is a good example:
So tell me, where in the original run, is Watson's war wound? What's the name of the housekeeper?
Conan-Doyle didn't bother to keep things consistent because he thought it was detrimental to the story, so citing him as proof that the original is somewhat superior is a fallacy...
So yeah, I'm with Christopher, Purism makes no sense!
Similar threads
